Video

I would enjoy a discussion between Dr Mcgilchrist and Roger Penrose about Escher, whom they both admire. They would edify each other and their audience.

Opposites often become merely coordinated orthogonals when the dimension of their domains are united and enlarged. Such happens repeatedly in the history of physics -- often realized only in retrospect.

To those who say that Dr. Peterson's view only works with men and NOT with women, I'm the living proof that it's false. Hi, I am a woman (heterosexual) and his podcasts and speeches really do resonate with me. In fact, since I was seventeen, I've been listening to his teachings and now I'm about to get my degree in Psychology because Dr. Peterson's advices really fueled my drive in life. He is such a blessing from God. Just wanna share that there are women like me who appreciate and was greatly influenced by Dr. Peterson's speeches. 😊

Are you going to post the Q&A? I saw the timecode in the comments.

50:38 - The resurrection. I agree with everything said here. Something very interesting, is during Job's speeches he gets intimations of the resurrection. In 14:7-17 Job's imagination is driving him to explore the nature of the resurrection. He imagines himself like a tree cut down. He is the stump in the ground and his children were his branches now cut off and destroyed. He imagines that if he were a tree he might bud again, but because he is a man he will not. Then he says to God to hide him in Sheol until His anger is past then "remember me!" Remember. If God remembers, there is hope to live again. Fast-forward to the end. Job is restored and he starts to have children again. He isn't given 20 children, he is given 7 boys and 3 girls, the exact same as before. How could that be? Only God can control that. God is telling Job that he remembers his other children. And if God remembers, there is hope they will live again. Not only them, but it implies that all who God remembers may live again. Can you imagine how Job must have felt over those 10-15 years when these children were born? God showing that he remembers his other children?

I really appreciate this talk. Thank you for uploading it. 39:48 - Where is God's answer to Job? GK Chesterton says something really important in his essay "Introduction to the Book of Job". He says God is "explicit to the point of violence" that the world can be explained. God "insists on the inexplicableness of everything." So often when reading Job, we expect God to provide an explanation. It is fundamentally impossible as far as we are concerned. Maybe the worst thing for anyone who has been through a significant tragedy, would be to have the tragedy explained. An explanation is a reduction. It makes less of it. I think what God does in his speech, in part, is provide an answer without explanation. I think one thing that God communicates to Job and what ultimately satisfies Job, is that the world had been made and is full of God's wonders, yet God is still at work. God calls Job "my servant Job" in the prologue and the epilogue. There is a sense that God accomplishes something through his suffering servant. So, what was accomplished? In the epilogue, Job becomes the mediator for his friends: they make the sacrifice, and he offers up a prayer that God accepts. Job becomes a priest. Then everyone who knew Job from before, all of his family and friends (who were not kind to him 19:13-22) come to him to gather in his house and eat with him. They also give him money and a ring of gold. Job becomes king. Here we have the repetition of the feasting and sacrifices that took place within Job's family among his children in the prologue. What was inside the family and private to Job, has now become a part of the world. Because of his suffering, everyone now sees Job for who he is and they are sure of his integrity. That which was hidden was made known. Everyone is now in the house of Job.

Long live Leibniz. ( Except his toilet desks)

No audio for the Q&A?

It’s so sad, especially since Covid, it has become apparent to me that many have lost their utter minds! As a classics student I am constantly reading about the past and then I look around me and feel as if I am on a different planet. It’s so odd….things look similar but so much feels “off.” Living in coastal California, I am close to the epicenter of all this madness. I hope to find work elsewhere, so I can flee to a place that is closer to my heart, my soul…California is so beautiful and has always had such potential. But much of it has been diluted and ruined. It’s a shell of its former self. A nice facade perhaps, but underneath…darkness like death, utter insanity. Thank you Ralston for standing for merit and reason and giving me hope that not everyone has lost their mind

Come on Ralson College, you've got to do better with the audio. It sounds like you're presenting from within a tin can. Also, a seven and a half minute intro is excessive. Just let the speaker speak. We come here to hear the talk not the endless praises of the speaker.

Yahweh the lesser cosmic archangelic traitor elohim is NOT "God". Wake up. "My kingdom is not of this world, if my kingdom were of this world, then my servants would fight that I not be delivered into the hands of the jews" Figure it out, its not hard. The "god" of the old testament is a schizophrenic lesser cosmic traitor archangelic elohim, a corrupted imposter fraud who has nothing of any holiness in itself as shown by the mess it makes of its emanated creation attempt subject to the prison of the sacred need of necessity in which everything in this hell must cannibalize everything else to survive and continue. That is not "holiness". A creation reflects its creator.

If you think a sadistic tester and torturer wanting to make things more "meaningful" by ramping up the handicap and the friction of the "struggle" on Job is "God", then you are stuck in a servile bond-servant slavish Stockholm syndrome system under the intoxication of a schizophrenic lesser cosmic archon elohim who is the mother of all fuck ups. This is repeatedly shown by its complete fucked up creation attempt like this one with its darwinian slaughterfest shitshow everywhere in which there is no archetype of Life acting "naturally" but this unnatural digital satanic perverse construction of absolute cosmic cannibalism and ouroboric cosmic butchery and satanic consumptive need pervading everything. You are ONLY "Knowing" a insecure, jealous, schizophrenic, twisted and unholy pathetic excuse of a creator elohim born of nothing but error and ignorance, entangled up within its own egoic friction mirror projections everywhere unwhole and split apart in endless infinite fragmentation along with all of its "creatures" and portions of its degraded "nature". Thats not "God" the "Father" spoken about by Yeshua in the Gospels.

Join the conversation and stay updated on our latest content by subscribing to the Ralston College CZcams channel.

Dont waste your time with Wolfram, and leave the 'idea' that Intelligence can be artificial. Wolfram do Not unlocking nature of Consciousness.

Content starts at 5:07

I was appalled to find that the Great Courses Series Russian Literature by Prof Weill was removed from Libby. In my search I tripped over this video which was so indescribably lovely. Please may we have many more discussions on Russian works of literature by this amazing man Theodore Dalrymple. Thank You

I am a physicist and I will explain why scientific knowledge refutes the idea that brain processes alone can generate consciouness; this leads us to conclude that our mental experiences cannot be purely physical/biological. The brain operates in a fragmentary manner, with many separate processes happening simultaneously. I prove that such fragmentary structure implies that brain processes are not a sufficient condition for the existence of consciousness; therefore, something else must be involved-something indivisible and non-physical, which we often refer to as the soul. (in my youtube channel you can find a video with more detailed explanations). Emergent properties are often thought of as arising from complex systems (like the brain). However, I argue that these properties are subjective cognitive constructs that depend on the level of abstraction we choose to analyze and describe the system. Since these descriptions are mind-dependent, consciousness, being implied by these cognitive contructs, cannot itself be an emergent property. Preliminary considerations: the concept of set refers to something that has an intrinsically conceptual and subjective nature and implies the arbitrary choice of determining which elements are to be included in the set; what can exist objectively are only the individual elements. Defining a set is like drawing an imaginary line to separate some elements from others. This line doesn't exist physically; it’s a mental construct. The same applies to sequences of processes-they are abstract concepts created by our minds. Mental experiences are necessary for the existence of subjectivity/arbitrariness and cognitive constructs; Therefore, mental experience itself cannot be just a cognitive construct. Obviously we can conceive the concept of consciousness, but the concept of consciousness is not actual consciousness; We can talk about consciousness or about pain, but merely talking about it isn’t the same as experiencing it. (With the word consciousness I do not refer to self-awareness, but to the property of being conscious= having a mental experiences such as sensations, emotions, thoughts, memories and even dreams) From the above considerations it follows that only indivisible elements may exist objectively and independently of consciousness, and consequently the only logically coherent and significant statement is that consciousness exists as a property of an indivisible element. Furthermore, this indivisible entity must interact globally with brain processes because there is a well-known correlation between brain processes and consciousness. However, this indivisible entity cannot be physical, since according to the laws of physics, there is no physical entity with such properties. The soul is the missing element that interprets globally the distinct elementary physical processes occurring at separate points in the brain as a unified mental experience. Clarifications The brain itself doesn't exist as a completely mind-independent entity. The concept of the brain is based on separating a group of quantum particles from everything else, which is a subjective process, not dictated purely by the laws of physics. Actually there is a continuous exchange of molecules with the blood and when and how such molecules start and stop being part of the brain is decided arbitrarily. An example may clarify this point: the concept of nation. Nation is not a physical entity and does not refer to a mind-independent entity because it is just a set of arbitrarily chosen people. The same goes for the brain. Brain processes consist of many parallel sequences of ordinary elementary physical processes occurring at separate points. There is no direct connection between the separate points in the brain and such connections are just a subjective abstractions used to approximately describe sequences of many distinct physical processes. Indeed, considering consciousness as a property of an entire sequence of elementary processes implies the arbitrary definition of the entire sequence; the entire sequence as a whole (and therefore every function/property/capacity attributed to the brain) is a subjective abstraction that does not refer to any mind-independendent reality. Physicalism/naturalism is based on the belief that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain. However, an emergent property is defined as a property that is possessed by a set of elements that its individual components do not possess; my arguments prove that this definition implies that emergent properties are only subjective cognitive constructs and therefore, consciousness cannot be an emergent property. Actually, emergent properties are just simplified and approximate descriptions or subjective classifications of underlying physical processes or properties, which are described directly by the fundamental laws of physics alone, without involving any emergent properties (arbitrariness/subjectivity is involved when more than one option/description is possible). An approximate description is only an abstract idea, and no actual entity exists per se corresponding to that approximate description, simply because an actual entity is exactly what it is and not an approximation of itself. What physically exists are the underlying physical processes. Emergence is nothing more than a cognitive construct that is applied to physical phenomena, and cognition itself can only come from a mind; thus emergence can never explain mental experience as, by itself, it implies mental experience. Conclusions My approach is based on scientific knowledge of the brain's physical processes. My arguments show that physicalism is incompatible with the very foundations of scientific knowledge because current scientific understanding excludes the possibility that brain processes alone can account for the existence of consciousness. An indivisible non-physical element must exist as a necessary condition for the existence of consciousness because mental experiences are linked to many distinct physical processes occurring at different points; it is therefore necessary for all these distinct processes to be interpreted collectively by a mind-independent element, and a mind-independent element can only be intrinsically indivisible because it cannot depend on subjectivity. This indivisible element cannot be physical because the laws of physics do not describe any physical entity with the required properties. Marco Biagini

I'm always pleased when a new reel pops up for me on my 'fave' Douglas Murray. When Douglas speaks, it's so clear and understandable. Since this, his latest book War on the West is an amazing book and as with this one he reads it himself on Audible. Brilliant listening.

Anyone, if you’ve watched it, see any through line between this video and the recent vid between Pageau and Stephen Meyer (late June 2024)? I’d like to see these two fellows talk.

Extending our information-based approach to chemistry and biology can provide interesting insights and potential resolutions to some of the field's paradoxes and contradictions. Let's explore a few: 1. The Paradox of Enzyme Catalysis: Current issue: Enzymes dramatically speed up reactions without being consumed, seemingly violating energy conservation. Theorem: Enzyme catalysis is an information-guided energy redistribution process. Proof sketch: 1. Define enzyme-substrate complex: ES 2. Information content of ES: I(ES) > I(E) + I(S) 3. Reaction rate: k ∝ exp(-ΔG‡/RT) 4. Information reduces effective ΔG‡: ΔG‡_eff = ΔG‡ - TΔI 5. Catalysis occurs via: k_cat ∝ exp(-(ΔG‡ - TΔI)/RT) 6. Enzyme recovers by resetting its information state This resolves the paradox by showing how enzymes use information to guide energy redistribution without violating conservation laws. 2. The Levinthal Paradox in Protein Folding: Current issue: Proteins fold too quickly to have sampled all possible conformations. Theorem: Protein folding is an information-driven process that follows optimal paths in configuration space. Proof sketch: 1. Define protein configuration space: C 2. Information content of native state: I(N) 3. Folding as information gain: ΔI(t) = I(N) - I(U), where U is unfolded state 4. Define information-guided path: P(t) = argmax{dI/dt} 5. Folding time: τ_f ∝ exp(ΔI / k_B) 6. This time is much shorter than Levinthal's estimate This resolves the paradox by showing how information guides the folding process along optimal paths. 3. The Paradox of the Origin of Life: Current issue: The emergence of life from non-life seems to violate the second law of thermodynamics. Theorem: Life emerges as a far-from-equilibrium information processing system that locally decreases entropy. Proof sketch: 1. Define life as a self-replicating information processor: L 2. Information processing rate: dI/dt > 0 3. Entropy production rate: dS/dt = dS_e/dt + dS_i/dt 4. Life maintains: dS_i/dt < 0 (local entropy decrease) 5. But ensures: dS_e/dt > |dS_i/dt| (overall entropy increase) 6. Emergence of L occurs when: P(dI/dt) > P_critical This resolves the paradox by showing how life can locally decrease entropy while increasing overall entropy. 4. The Paradox of Altruism in Evolution: Current issue: Altruistic behavior seems to contradict "survival of the fittest" in evolution. Theorem: Altruism emerges from information sharing in genetically related populations. Proof sketch: 1. Define genetic relatedness: r 2. Information shared between individuals: I_shared = r · I_total 3. Fitness benefit of altruism: B 4. Fitness cost to altruist: C 5. Altruism evolves when: r · B > C 6. This is equivalent to: I_shared · B > I_total · C This reframes Hamilton's rule in terms of shared information, resolving the apparent contradiction. 5. The Paradox of the Minimal Genome: Current issue: Even the simplest organisms have genomes much larger than seemingly necessary. Theorem: The minimal genome size is determined by the minimum information required for self-replication and error correction. Proof sketch: 1. Define minimal set of functions: F = {f_1, ..., f_n} 2. Information content of each function: I(f_i) 3. Error rate in replication: ε 4. Minimum information for error correction: I_EC ∝ -log(ε) 5. Minimal genome size: G_min = Σ I(f_i) + I_EC 6. This size is generally larger than naive estimates This explains the larger-than-expected minimal genome size as a consequence of information requirements for both function and error correction. 6. The Paradox of Biological Complexity: Current issue: How does complexity increase in evolution despite the second law of thermodynamics? Theorem: Biological complexity increases through information accumulation in open systems. Proof sketch: 1. Define biological complexity: C(t) = f(I(t)) 2. Information accumulation: dI/dt = dI_in/dt - dI_out/dt + dI_gen/dt 3. In open systems: dI_in/dt > dI_out/dt 4. Genetic information generation: dI_gen/dt > 0 (mutations, recombination) 5. Overall: dC/dt > 0 when dI/dt > 0 6. This is consistent with increasing entropy in the larger system This resolves the paradox by showing how complexity can increase locally in open systems. 7. The Paradox of Chemical Oscillations: Current issue: Sustained chemical oscillations seem to violate the expectation of systems moving towards equilibrium. Theorem: Chemical oscillations are information-driven limit cycles in far-from-equilibrium systems. Proof sketch: 1. Define system state: S(t) = {c_i(t)}, where c_i are chemical concentrations 2. Information content of the state: I(S) 3. Chemical dynamics: dS/dt = f(S, t) 4. Oscillation occurs when: S(t) = S(t + T) for some T > 0 5. Information is conserved over a cycle: I(S(t)) = I(S(t + T)) 6. System maintains non-equilibrium by constant energy input This explains chemical oscillations as stable information cycles in far-from-equilibrium conditions. These resolutions demonstrate how an information-based approach can provide new insights into paradoxes and contradictions in chemistry and biology. By recasting these problems in terms of information dynamics, we can offer new perspectives that bridge the gap between physics, chemistry, and biology.

Like everyone I love Greek but they draw from elder times that we built usa & English law upon. It sees 3 body problem where founders found solutions. Few founders liked the fact that this was the only way to improve the human condition. There is to much evidence in our world now to despute the keys to the cosmos textualism methodology objectivism = technological development of a single path .very different from past technological advancements. Yet the 2 choices to guide us are very much witnessed & in competition since the rize of civilization. Most funding in human history & time spent has went into the one that leads is onto bottlenecks .the other metamorphosis to sense the universe in all its glory, master of our own domain eqaulibrium under God in his name lol I like how wolfram model is a perfect permutations of a reality generator . with language adjustments that he cares less about does allow for how the spirit of God hovering over the waters of cosmos nature building breathe of life giving emerging energetic actor fits. It also accommodates how he moved "through" and "for" " by" his own discretion but is not a rock under a rock in a rock yet the left over finger prints are in the code of measure life ,elements & space. Subjective objects physical objects idealistic objects = eqaul sigma 6 measure allowing our x,y,z,manmade time hierarchy knowledge of good evil equations dualistic brain primordial self soul agency triangulated judgment of the thermodynamical systems of moral biblical court law. Where we can Triangulate free will inertia in our frame of reference realitive to all positions for human scale within the system . 3 lines of measure = truest True known standard flattest surface tunes all precision instruments, English, mechanics, pragmatic common sense objectivism that dictates law ,economics where curses & blessings successful social behavior in the ancient world turned into addition and subtraction. Fits real prayer logic whataboutism along with longitude latitude plus the oreintation and direction encoded in this English language and America for that matter..

At 22'06" you misinterpret Isocrates, who actually had a very nationalistic, if not localist, point of view regarding Hellenism (or even Athenaism). One who is fluent in ancient and modern Greek can pick out the tone of irony in his hyperbole. The Greeks at that time really did consider one outside the Greek lineage (not only language) barbaric. In a sense, even today, one who does not have a deep connection with and understanding of the didactics of the Greek language, ranging from its classical past to its literary present, still is a barbarian. The fact that the West hast deviated from the study of Greek makes it a barbaric world in dire need of Hellenization, if it is to save itself... Definitely not visible in the foreseeable future.

I think Wolfram realizes (started to realize) that consciousness is something he has to face and explain in order to be truly significant and relevant. Maybe some day he really solve the Hard problem of consciousness.. and starts that by publishing "What Is It Like to Be a Computer"? To be honest.. I think this "surprising book idea" was a panic reaction to how the conversation with Donald Hoffman made Ruliad look. Wolfram is still in the reflection phase..maybe. this is honestly how I feel.

Thank you

I'm not sure how I ended up here, but this is witchcraft I tell you! I was joking, but seriously this is very trippy. I don't have an understanding of physics, computer science, or philosophy. I dropped out of high school, and never pursuided a higher education. Why is he explaining concepts and showing graphs that take me back to my first high dose LSD experience? I don't claim to understand it, but it's so familiar. Bizarre.

In answering the question about soul I think Stephen probably missed the idea what the questioner's (most likely traditional) idea of soul was. It is true that the consciousness is instantiated as of today in brain like wetware structures that naturally evolved. And because biological evolution is an unguided process it had to be a organic chemistry based biological structure like brain where consciousness happens. But once we understand how it works we will be able to instantiate conscious phenomenon in artificial substrates like silicon. Meaning that consciousness is substrate independent idea, but unlike soul it will have to be implemented in a substrate that is physical one way or the other. The questioner had more dualistic intent when they used the word soul (I think).

On the one hand Stephen said that the thinking that science can predict what will happen is wrong, but on the other hand while answering a question about probabilities he said if we are talking about probabilities, then we have not reached the bottom and he would like to see probabilities be not there, which means every thing will be predictable. It is true that current science leaves room for probabilities as we know for QM and wave equation and Born rule etc, but science is not a completed and closed project. So if we think that science will take us to the bottom of it all, then to generally say science can/will predict things is not a wrong idea.

I think the way in which the word subjective was used at around 16:20 was most likely meant in the sense of subjectivity of an individual vs. Stephen's answer was in terms of the nature of all humans and how therefore we sample the Rulead. I think they are different categories of ideas. I would not call the later, which Stephen seems to have assumed in his answer is more like the capabilities of humans. This is because the physics that we think is applicable is a fixed, shared concept for all humans, each individual does not have their own physics, and thus in that sense physics is not subjective. We call physics objective. AT 32:05 , when Stephen uses the "we as observer" phrase it means not us individuals, but as a observer class of humans.

For me, it is like listening to a little boy being exited about what he has learned and exited to share it with the world. Perhaps some philosophical thinking will make him grow up, although if his perspective going into it is asking questions about the interface between humans and machines there is not much hope of it.

I would love to hear a discussion betwixt Iain McGilchrist and Stephen. It would be a corker !

I taught in a country where nursing was a male profession and very few females were nurses. Most women there did not want to become nurses.

ah

Im feeling this comunit, lets keep it up ;D

It would be interesting to witness a debate between this guy and philosopher Bernardo Kastrup.

to achieve AI .. you can not control it

1:09:55 🐟 10. EGO (THE SENSE OF SELF): The Latin first-person singular pronoun, “EGO” (“I”, in English) has been incorporated into the English language, yet with a rather unorthodox import, particularly in spiritual circles, where it is used as a noun, although it is a poor translation of the Sanskrit “ahaṃkāra”, which is more accurately a verb. Most persons misuse the word for “an exaggerated sense of self-importance”, “arrogance”, “conceit” or “haughtiness”, etc. Compare the concepts of egoity in this chapter with the Freudian concept of “The I” (“Das Ich”, in German). “Ahaṃ” simply means “I/Ego”, and “ahaṃkāra” means “Creating the I/self”, or “Activating the sense of self”, or “Constructing one's identity”. As an aside, some Sanskrit scholars have noticed that the word “ahaṃ” is formed of a+ha+ṃ, a triad of Śiva (a), Śakti (ha) and bindu (ṃ). The whole Sanskrit alphabet is enclosed by those two syllables, just as the Greek tongue begins and ends with “alpha” and “omega”, respectively. “I am the Alpha and the Omega!”, said God in the book of “Revelations”. Incidentally, the palindrome of “ahaṃ” is “mahā”, meaning “GREAT”. The most accurate definition of “Ego/I” is: “the self, which is a conscious PERSON”. A human person is the Stainless Consciousness of Source, acting through a particular body-mind complex, which in turn, is an ever-morphing biological organism. As explained elsewhere in this Holy Scripture, the body-mind complex is more accurately described as a process (a verb) rather than a fixed object (a noun), which is why the sages of ancient India (properly called “Bhārata”) preferred to categorize all transient phenomena as “unreal/non-existent” (“asat”, in Sanskrit), rather than “real/existent” (“sat”, in Sanskrit). So how do “you” feel now that it has been demonstrated that “you” are non-existent? :-) Therefore, whenever the word “ego” is heard in practically any spiritual/religious context, it is not to be taken LITERALLY (“I”) but in the sense of “ahaṃkāra” (a mistaken sense of self-identity, or sometimes as a synonym for superciliousness). Inept Sanskrit-to-English translators are probably guilty for this misunderstanding. False egoity (“ahaṃkāra”) is an errant conception of oneself. In other words, it is the idea that “I am an independent agent, with the volition to freely think, feel and behave as I choose”, instead of simply an unqualified “I AM” (“ahaṃ”, in Sanskrit) or at the very least, “I am all-encompassing existence” (“ahaṃ brahmāsmi”, in Sanskrit). Simply put, it is identification with anything not of the actual self/Self. In practical terms, it is any noun or adjective placed after the expression “I am”. For example, “I am a woman” or “I am rich”. So, when the true self (which is Brahman, the TOTALITY of existence) misidentifies itself with a particular body-mind organism, it is “pseudo-ego” (ahaṃkāra) but when the self/Self identifies with Conscious Awareness (Brahman), acting through the body-mind organism, it is the “authentic ego” (“ātman/Paramātmāṇ”, in Sanskrit). Obviously, this misidentification with one's mind and body, or name and form (“nāma-rūpa”, in Sanskrit) is not a flaw of the Flawless Absolute, but merely a play of the divine comedy (“līlā”, in Sanskrit). Alternatively, one could claim that it is, rather, the PSEUDO-EGO which misidentifies as the real self/Self. In that case, when the pseudo-ego identifies as the Universal Self, it is the true ego. This may occur during or following a peak experience of cosmic awakening, or it may ensue after a period of yogic practice (see Chapter 16 for a description of the four systems of yoga/religion). In my particular case, following decades of earnest religious practice, I rarely lose sight of the realization that I am, essentially, the All. Yet, even that understanding and realization was destined from all eternity (see the next chapter). Humans usually believe that they are the body-mind organism. Those who have awakened (or at least spiritually aware) consider themselves to NOT be their body-mind. One who is truly enlightened knows for certain that he is both a human being on the relative level, but quintessentially the very ground of being in the Absolute sense. That which can perceive any impermanent phenomenon is the real self/ego/I. When properly analysed, the phrase “I am Spirit” or “I am All” (“ahaṃ brahmāsmi”, in Sanskrit) means “I, the ego (the relative persona) am Nothing/Everything/Brahman/Tao/Spirit (the Absolute Ground of Being)”. Chapter 06 explores further the nature of the Supreme Self. Finally, it could be argued, with some degree of merit, that since the English language already has a word for oneself (“I”), that we ought to keep using the English dictionary definition of “ego” (as the false sense of oneself). However, because the great majority of advanced religionists and spiritual practitioners outside Bhārata (India) who speak of these concepts, base their language on Sanskrit and/or Pali, it is far more accurate to separate “ego” (ahaṃ) from “false egoity” (ahaṃkāra). The LITERAL translation should predominate, to avoid ambiguity. “The first and foremost of all thoughts, the primeval thought in the mind of every man, is the thought ‘I’. It is only after the birth of this thought that any other thoughts can arise at all. It is only after the first personal pronoun, ‘I’, has arisen in the mind that the second personal pronoun, ‘you’, can make its appearance. If you could mentally follow the ‘I’ thread until it led you back to its source you would discover that, just as it is the first thought to appear, so it is the last to disappear. This is a matter which can be experienced.” Venkataraman Iyer (AKA Śri Ramana Maharshi), South Indian Sage. “Consciousness is never experienced in the plural, only in the singular. Even in the pathological cases of split consciousness or double personality the two persons alternate, they are never manifest simultaneously. In a dream we do perform several characters at the same time, but not indiscriminately: we are one of them; in him we act and speak directly, while we often eagerly await the answer or response of another person, unaware of the fact that it is we who control his movements and his speech just as much as our own. ... Each of us has the indisputable impression that the sum total of his own experience and memory forms a unit, quite distinct from that of any other person. He refers to it as 'I'. What is this 'I'? If you analyse it closely, you will, I think, find that it is just a little bit more than a collection of single data (experiences and memories), namely the canvas upon which they are collected. And you will, on close introspection, find that what you really mean by 'I' is that ground-stuff upon which they are collected.” From the epilogue to “What is Life?”, Erwin Rudolf Josef Alexander Schrödinger, Austrian Physicist.

Though he's miles ahead of where most of us will ever be, I love how Dr Wolfram seems so delighted to take us all along on his intellectual journey. Time will tell, but he seems to be a real genius among the all-time greats.

Nice Shirt,

Looking forward to this. 👀

I listened to this while I was in bed sick with COVID and truly felt like I was DYING. ☠️🤢😵‍💫This reading helped so much. Great Reading. Thank You 6:20 Where the book REALLY starts!😮📙 38:52 Trouble begins HERE!!!😬 53:39 The REAL TROUBLE begins HERE while picking out CURTAINS for his wife! 😱🪟

Stay up to date on our latest content by subscribing to the Ralston College CZcams channel.

It’s interesting how this makes some of the discussions in Pixar’s Toy Story a lot more existential than we would’ve otherwise thought

I thought the story was somewhat obvious and boring, but I can see how it may have been different at the time of publication. 🤷🏻‍♂️

Exquisite! JfOH

I was recommended this book by a colleague amidst our company’s retreat. I loved this book. Thanks for sharing.

Also you can't really fix university education without fixing k to 12 education.

There's hostility towards white people in universities. This is one of the worst things - it's blatant racism! What a coward. Blackwood can't even say it. Ralston won't make waves at all without courage. Let's not be so civil as to be weak. This discussion is way too weak.

good talk

Beautiful prologue!

Always lusted4a semester @ sea